anonymous is not happy with the WBC.

http://www.anonpaste.me/anonpaste2/i...bIfZBqWpaGcMI= names and website domains
video announcement

it'd be nice to see them do some actual financial damage to them.

I used to think we needed to have an armed population to keep the government in check. But they are so big and powerful and so much more technically advanced than the citizenry that that argument is no longer valid.

Unless you think it's OK to let anyone have access to a nuclear bomb or think it's cool to sell airborne anthrax at the local convenient store then you think that there should be restrictions on the "right to bear arms" clause. Once you admit that we should have restrictions it's simply a matter of where to draw the line. Since we are drawing a line why not aim for the safest state of no guns for anyone? No confiscation just no more making or importing guns or bullets. Make the price go sky high. Let the gun nuts hold on to what they have. Let the hicks too young to have a gun hear stories about the good old days where you could get shot over nothing. Let the gangsters ironically shoot each other over the shrinking supply of bullets. Let the good people know they have at least a fighting chance when some bastard wants to kill them.

Um, the gov't has pretty much no chance vs 80 million gun owners in the USA.

What percentage of the police/National Guard/military would tell Obama to pound sand if he ordered them to go door to door confiscating weapons from their neighbors?

Jesus, 8 tours in Afghanistan sounds safer than kicking down doors in Mississippi.

Nice strawman. Nobody here is arguing we should have nukes. We are arguing taking away guns from law abiding citizens wont preven't tragedies like what just happened.

People are more evil today than ever before. Start lobbying for more asylums to house the crazies if you want a solution.

I'm not willing to put in the effort, but I think this is clearly not the case.

One of these days, someone is just going to lose it and go nuts with a gun when WBC shows up to protest.

I must be high right now because it appears to me like there's a conversation going on ITT comparing guns and alcohol. But that can't be the case because that would just be out and out ******ed.

So now that you know you were completely wrong on this, this causes you to pause, take a step back and reflect on your opinion, right?

5:1 that if that happens, the first anchor to break the news does it with a smile.

The hits keep coming.

costas not doing a speech tonight???

son of a bitch the costas speech was the only reason i was watching SNF tonight.

FMP, better?

@GunDeaths <----- Enjoy

No.

Talk radio tonight was golden. It was the Tsao's give teachers guns but far more extreme than even I think he could imagine. Teachers are the most trustworthy people ever. Every teacher should be allowed to carry, with appropriate training, up to semi automatic weapons openly on campus. Signs saying " Faculty is heavily armed and any attempt to harm children will be met with heavy resistance and deadly force" should be posted within 100 feet of campus.

9/11 happened because people weren't carrying guns on board, if only airplane passengers could carry weapons then we'd all be safe and the TSA would only need to screen for bombs.

China and Japan suffered their mass attacks because they weren't armed either. We are headed towards a future where criminals with guns will rule our lives as we helplessly watch because the government won't help.

That was the first 30 minutes.

*Sigh*

Paging Neblis for his thoughts on the shooter in fact using an assault weapon and shooting himself only upon law enforcement arriving on the scene, meaning that a meaningful assault weapons ban would in fact have saved the lives of six year olds.

Also am amused by the right wingers all of a sudden wanting to arm teachers, who a month ago were the scum of the earth.

Cognitive dissonance, how does it work.

wouldn't he have just used the handguns and shotgun instead?

Serious?Letmelaughharder.jpg

btw, your thoughts on the fact that the shooter shot his way into the building, meaning that any adult with a gun would have had enough time to try to use it to defend all those children which could in fact have saved the lives of six year olds?

I thought it would be assumed that I didn't mean a full scale war of the gov. vs. its citizens. But if it did come to that the citizens would lose anyway but that's basically an impossible scenario.

We can't really force our government to do anything right now or keep them from doing anything. They could start hauling us away to camps what would we do? Take our relative pea shooters out in suicidal last stands?

Let's assume for a second, without making any real judgement, that Bush did steal the election and it was plain to everyone but the right wing was cool with it. Could we who thought is wasn't cool have launched a revolt with our guns against their Apache helicopters and Abrams tanks and who knows what else? No.

My nukes argument is not a strawman tactic. I am not saying you say we should have personal nukes. I am saying that clearly you do not agree we should have nukes so then you clearly agree to restrictions since no nukes is a restriction. If we have restrictions then we are drawing the line somewhere. Why not draw it at the point that maximizes our safety? So you can hunt coons? I don't give a care about your raccoon hunting. Get a bow and arrow and give the animals a chance tough guy.

That scenario would call for tactics of asymmetrical warfare, maybe something along the lines of what Palestinians (try to) do to Israelis. Only a moron would try to wage open warfare against a vastly superior opponent.

Thousands of dead Russian and American soldiers in Afghanistan disagree.

I mean, THIS. IS. EXACTLY. MY. POINT. I'm not making a case that homicides are prevented by more guns. I'm making a case that the number of guns are is not what we should be focusing on, given our goal is to prevent homicides.

I don't understand what's so hard about this. If gun control was super duper important to homicide rates in the US then crack epidemics wouldn't have a large effect compared to gun control. Given that, why is this policy discussion that is supposedly designed to prevent homicides focused on gun control?

I am not convinced that homicides by legally acquired firearm have increased much at all in the last 50 years.

I can't find any stats, but common sense guestimate is 90-95%+ of all firearm homicides are committed with illegally acquired firearms.